Vijay Mallya can’t stay in UK by making political vendetta claims: Judge

At the special court, Mallya's counsel had claimed that he left India in March 2016 for a scheduled meeting and had not gone secretly, illegally and hurriedly to avoid arrest. The court said, had he departed India to attend a pre-scheduled meeting and was a law-abiding citizen, he would have immediately informed the authorities about his schedule to return.

Highlights

Mallya's counsel had claimed that he left India in March 2016 for a scheduled meeting and had not gone secretly, illegally and hurriedly to avoid arrest

The court said, had he departed India to attend a pre-scheduled meeting and was a law-abiding citizen, he would have immediately informed the authorities about his schedule to return

File photo

Related Videos

Vijay Mallya can’t stay in UK ...

MUMBAI: Special judge MS Azmi has said businessman Vijay Mallya's mere statement that the Centre had pursued a political vendetta against him and hence, initiated criminal proceedings and investigations, cannot be a ground for his stay in the UK.

"The argument in this regard is mere fiction of his imagination to pose himself as a law-abiding citizen," Azmi said in a 55-page order declaring Mallya as fugitive economic offender.

"The statement that the prosecution against him is the outcome of political vendetta against him would not lead to draw inference that he should not be declared fugitive economic offender," he added. The special court had, on January 5, made the declaration against Mallya and said the order on confiscation of his properties will be decided on February 5. This is the first such order under the newly enacted Fugitive Economic Offenders Act. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had moved the plea before special court under the act.

At the special court, Mallya's counsel had claimed that he left India in March 2016 for a scheduled meeting and had not gone secretly, illegally and hurriedly to avoid arrest. However, the court had said that by then the cases against him were already registered. It added that had he departed India to attend a pre-scheduled meeting and was a law-abiding citizen, he would have immediately informed the authorities about his schedule to return. The court also said Mallya had only contested his extradition proceedings. A UK court, had in December, allowed Mallya's extradition.

"In spite of issuance of repeated summons and warrants of arrests, he did not give a date of return. Therefore, it would be unsafe to accept the argument that he departed India only to attend the pre-scheduled meeting. His overall conduct suggests his refusal to return of India to face criminal prosecution," the court said.

The court also said Mallya had only contested his extradition proceedings. A UK court, had in December, allowed Mallya's extradition.

The special court further said Mallya's contention that the ED had not supplied "reason to belief" did not hold. It said the intention of the act is to preserve the sanctity of rule of law. "The expression reason to belief has to be read in that context. The reasons supplied are, the amount involved is Rs 9,990 crores which is more than Rs 100 crores, which is the requirement of the act. As pointed out, the summons issued was deliberately avoided, passport was revoked, non bailable warrants were issued and he was declared a proclaimed offender. These appear to be sufficient reasons as they cover the parameters of the act to declare him a fugitive economic offender," the judge said.

Mallya's counsel had also contended that at every stage, the ED had resisted his efforts to repay banks. The court, however, said even if the attempts were made by Mallya for a one-time settlement, it had nothing to do with the alleged scheduled offence.

Mallya had further contended that he was making efforts for the settlement and, therefore, unable to personally attend the investigations. "The reason given itself suggests that Mallya was avoiding joining the investigation. By his own admissions that he informed Serious Fraud Investigation Office that he will return after the end of March 2016 and his failure to return demonstrates he has no intention to return to India," the judge said.

All Comments ()+^ Back to Top

Characters Remaining: 3000

Continue without login

or

Login from existing account

FacebookGoogleEmail

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Refrain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks, name calling or inciting hatred against any community. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive. Let's work together to keep the conversation civil.